![youtube image](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/XtsRbMTZwfA/mqdefault.jpg)
►
From YouTube: Board of Adjustments 06/23/2021
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
C
A
D
F
This
is
a
quasi-judicial
proceeding
where
the
board
of
adjustment
acts
in
a
quasi-judicial
rather
than
a
legislative
capacity,
a
quasi-judicial
hearing.
It
is
not
the
board's
function
to
make
law,
but
rather
to
apply
law
that
has
already
been
established
in
a
quasi-judicial
hearing.
The
board
is
required
by
law
to
make
findings
of
fact,
based
upon
the
evidence
presented
at
the
hearing
and
apply
those
findings
of
fact
to
previously
established
criteria
contained
in
the
code
of
ordinances
in
order
to
make
a
legal
decision
regarding
the
application
before
it.
F
The
board
may
only
consider
evidence
at
this
hearing
that
the
law
considers
competence,
substantial
and
relevant
to
the
issues.
If
the
competent,
substantial
and
relevant
evidence
at
the
hearing
demonstrates
that
the
applicant
has
met
the
criteria
established
in
the
code
of
ordinance,
then
the
board
is
required
by
law
to
find
in
favor
of
the
applicant.
By
the
same
token,
if
the
competent,
substantial
and
relevant
evidence
at
the
hearing
demonstrates
that
the
applicant
has
failed
to
meet
the
criteria
established
in
the
code
of
ordinance,
then
the
board
is
required
by
law
to
find
against
the
applicant.
F
Are
there
any
members
of
the
board
wishing
to
disclose
any
ex
parte
communications
or
conflicts
of
interest
this
evening,
seeing
none
anyone
wishing
to
speak
this
evening?
If
you
could
please
stand
and
raise
your
right
hand
to
be
sworn
in,
do
you
swear
or
affirm
that
the
testimony
you're
about
to
give
us
the
truth,
the
whole
truth
and
nothing
but
the
truth?
I.
D
A
D
G
Okay,
the
subject
property
is
outlined
here
in
red.
It's
just
off
a
live
oak
street,
just
west
of
distant
avenue.
The
property
as
well
as
properties
to
the
north
east
and
west
are
zoned
r-70a,
which
is
a
single
family
residential
zoning
district.
There
is
some
ir,
which
is
an
industrial,
restricted
zoning
to
the
south.
G
G
The
second
variance
is
to
a
request
to
reduce
the
side
yard
setbacks.
The
afghans
are
proposing
a
five
foot
setback
from
both
the
east
and
west
property
lines
and
they're
required
to
have
a
seven
and
a
half
foot.
Minimum
setback.
G
The
r-70a
zoning
district
requires
a
minimum
lot
area
of
6
500
square
feet.
It
also
requires
a
minimum
lot
width
of
60
feet.
The
subject:
property
is
just
over
5
400
square
feet
in
area
and
is
only
40
feet
wide,
so
that
makes
it
a
non-conforming
lot,
this
property,
which
is
lot
one
on
the
screen.
Let
me
do
it
here
and
the
adjacent
properties,
the
east,
which
is
lot
two,
are
the
two
properties
that
we're
talking
about
today.
As
far
as
common
ownership,
this
property
was
a
part
of
the
official
tarpon
springs
map.
G
G
G
G
F
C
Why
is
it
that
the
the
they
can't
borrow
some
land
from
the
other
side
is
a
question.
D
G
So
currently,
these
properties
are
not
under
common
ownership.
The
subject
property
was
purchased.
I
don't
have
the
exact
date.
I
can
look
that
up
so
they're,
not
in
common
ownership.
Currently,
the
property
deeds
were
kind
of
a
struggle
to
go
through
and
look
at
a
look
at
them
over
the
years,
but
they
were
within.
G
I
believe
2019.
I
can
very
I'll
verify
that
date
when
the
applicant
purchased
the
property.
C
What
I'm
asking
is
for
the
convenience
of
selling
the
non-conforming
lot
a
smaller
lot.
Something
could
be
sold
to
somebody
else,
rather
than
holding
it
themselves
and
just
circumvent
the
system.
So
that's
my
question.
You
know
I'm
not
saying
it
is
I'm
trying
to
avoid
that.
It's
not
so
much
giving
off
two
and
a
half
feet
on
each
side,
but
it's
a
combination
of
that
and
also
going
down
to
40
feet
is
a
very,
very
small.
You
know
area.
G
It
is
narrow
for
the
zoning
district
in
which
it's
located
if
they
needed
to
or
if
the
possibility
was
to
acquire
land
from
neighboring
property
they'd
have
to
have
at
least
20
feet
of
frontage
provided
over
to
that
lot.
With
that
20
feet,
they
would
essentially
meet
the
or
most
likely
meet
the
minimum
lot
area.
So
it's
not
just
getting.
You
know
two
and
a
half
feet
on
each
side.
They'd
have
to
have
at
least
20
additional
feet
of
width
along
live
oak.
C
C
Well,
this
would
be
you
know
right
now,
I'm
asking
you
the
questions,
because
I
see
you
know
the
property
is
elongated,
it's
long,
but
as
far
as
in
width,
there
has
to
be
some
sort
of
a
guideline
to
where
we
could
give
a
variance.
I
mean.
Is
it
40
you
know,
hear
me
out?
Is
it
40
feet?
Is
it
38
feet?
Is
it
35
feet?
C
G
So
these
are
your
your
guidelines
to
determine
whether
it's
buildable
or
not.
So
if
the
board
feels
that
these
three
criteria
or
standards
have
been
met,
that's
what
you
look
at,
it's
not
necessarily
determining
you
know
how
many
feet
is
adequate
to
build
it's
if
these
three
criteria
are
met.
In
with
your
determination,
I
think
kim
has
some.
E
Do
you
want
to
know
when
it
was
purchased?
Yes,
please,
february
of
2021.
C
This
goes
right
into
exactly
what
I
was
bringing
up:
I'm
not
again
inferring
anything,
but
this
this
is
a
perfect
example
of
being
able
to
sell
something
to
circumvent
the
system.
F
But
well,
and-
and
I
will
let
you
know
that-
whether
or
not
the
intent
of
purchasing
the
property
again
as
you've
heard
me
say
many
many
a
time
the
criteria
are
the
criteria
so
that
type
of
evidence
which
may
be
a
part
of
a
curiosity
as
to
their
intent.
Why
they're
doing
that
is
not
part
of
the
criteria
as
to
whether
or
not
it's
a
non-conforming
lot
of
record?
That's
buildable.
A
She
was
asking
questions
I
just
wanted
to
clarify.
She
said
she
was
not
the
applicant.
I
wanted
to
find
out.
In
fact
that's
who
she
was.
If
that's,
okay
with
you,
sir
no
more
questions
of
the
city
staff.
A
A
F
H
H
D
H
I'm
not
negative
against
that.
What
my
question
to
you
guys
is
is
I
wish
to
build
on
my
lot
as
well,
so
the
things
that
you
guys
are
point
exactly
giving
for
this
variance.
I
would
want
to
be
able
to
have
those
same
variance
exceptions.
H
A
F
Yeah,
so
the
with
the
variance
procedure,
every
application
that
comes
before
this
board
is
considered
on
its
own,
based
on
the
evidence
that's
presented
and
the
lot
itself.
So
if
you
were
to
come
before
this
board
and
present
evidence
and
your
lot
met
the
criteria,
then
they
would
be
required
to
grant
you
the
variance.
So
it
would
it's.
It's
done
on
an
individual
case-by-case
basis.
F
F
A
A
Correct
but
you
see
the
well.
F
B
I
will
make
a
motion
to
approve
the
non-conforming
lot
of
record.
E
C
A
D
C
It
was
just
brought
up
in
a
discussion
that
this
woman
would
like
to
do
the
exact
same
thing
on
her
property.
I
understand
we're
never
going
to
set
a
legal
precedence,
but
in
code
enforcement,
if
you
follow
them,
they
have
issues
with
with
people
doing
things
that
other
people
view
as
as
being
able
to
do
so.
Under
those
circumstances,
I
don't
think
that
you
can
build
a
proper
house
on
a
property
the
size
and
that's
where
I'm
going
to
stay
with.
C
H
B
Well,
obviously,
with
the
motion
that
I
brought
earlier
on
the
non-conforming
lot
of
record,
I
do
believe
that
it
is
buildable.
However,
the
required
setback
of
seven
and
a
half
feet
is
quite
minimal,
to
say
the
least,
and
to
go
even
smaller
is
very
concerning,
particularly
seeing
that
you
have
another
lot
next
to
it.
That
is
not
quite
as
narrow,
it
appears,
but
still
narrow.
I
think
there
are
other
options
to
be
explored.
B
A
So,
okay,
sir.
A
A
G
G
Still
going
to
see
kind
of
a
transition,
I
think
some
applicants
that
have
you
know
come
before
the
board
and
gone
through
the
process
before
are
gonna
have
to
adjust
to
the
new
format,
and
then
we
still
have
some
applications
that
have
been
passed
out,
though
the
old
format.
So
I
would
say,
you'll
see
a
little
bit
of
a
variation
until
another
month
or
so.
A
B
You
won't
push
that
button,
oh
yeah,
so
in
regards
as
you're
saying
for
the
the
new
application
that
the
staff
has
worked
very
diligently
on
great
job.
Thank
you
very
much.
I
was
just
curious
to
see
if
you
had
any
feedback
on
that
how's
it
working
not
working
for
y'all
for
the
applicants.
G
So
I
haven't
necessarily
had
any
positive
negative
feedback
whatsoever.
I
think
it
is
a
little
bit
of
an
adjustment
for
people
that
maybe
have
done
this
process
before
to
have
to
answer
some
questions
so
so
we're
starting
to
definitely
get
some
people
that
are
able
to
answer
the
questions
or
at
least
attempt
to
answer
the
criteria.
That's
definitely
still
a
learning
curve,
but
I
haven't
necessarily
had
any
negative
feedback.
I
don't
know
if
kim's
heard
anything
differently.
A
C
Thank
you,
sir.
My
question
is:
none
of
these
questions
were
answered.
Is
there
a
mandatory
that
the
applicant
answered
these
questions,
for?
Is
it
just
optional.
G
So
so,
ideally,
yes,
a
complete
application
should
have
all
the
answers.
Like
I
said,
we're
going
through
a
transitional
period,
we're
gonna
be
more
stringent
about
making
sure
we
get
the
information
that
we
need.
Sometimes
it's
challenging
to
get
information
from
applicants.
G
Sometimes
it's
it's
not
sometimes
it's
hard
to
find
answers,
but
you
know
this
is
our
attempt
to
try
and
get
as
much
out
as
we
possibly
can
and
really
reinforce
the
criteria
that
you
guys
are
bound
to,
so
that
they
understand
why
you're
making
decisions
and
what
you
can
consider
you
know
applicable
to
criteria
or
whatnot.
So.
C
My
next
question
would
be,
and
of
course,
as
we
all
fill
out
applications
there
are
places
that
you
know
that
have
an
asterisk.
That
says
must
be
filled
out.
Is
there
any
place
on
here?
That
has
that
so
that
you
know
you
have
a
situation.
I
know
that
in
in
cases
where,
especially
where
people
don't
show
up,
this
is
the
only
thing
we
have
to
go
by.
C
As
far
as-
and
I
know,
it's
we're
only
going
to
judge
by
the
amount
of
documentation
and
and
testimony
that
we
get,
but
if
we
get
nothing
on
the
answers
to
the
questions
and
no
testimony,
you
know
it's
kind
of
asking
us
to
just
object
to
it
and
deny
it.
C
So
if
you
and
and
it's
just
common
sense,
so
if
you
would
be
able
to
put
in
something
here
where
these
questions
have
to
be
filled
out,
although
I
don't
know
if
you
can,
if
it's
legal,
to
not
be
able
to
submit
this
with
without
an
answer
filled
out,
you
know,
but
this
would
be
something
that
you
may
want
to
look
into,
because
there's
no
sense
putting
things
in
and
having
them
just
come
out.
Blank.
G
No,
I
hear
you,
I
think
it's
important
to
address
the
criteria
and
fill
out
an
application
have
a
complete
application.
I
think
that
you
know
we
are
able
to
determine
what's
complete
and
was
not
complete
in
terms
of
an
application
goes.
I
don't,
I
believe
in
the
application
we
said
you
know,
you
know
you
must
fill
out
the
credit
or
answer
these
questions
doesn't
necessarily
have
you
know
this
is
required,
that's
something
that
we
can
discuss
and
see.
If
that's,
if
we're
able
to
do
that,
but
I
think
that
you
know.
C
Well,
the
reason
also
that
I
ask
this
question-
is
sometimes
people
when
they're
getting
up
to
speak
they're
not
able
to
for
that
moment
of
nervousness,
come
up
with
their
reasons,
and
this
gives
you
a
chance
for
them
to
answer
the
question
and
for
us
to
look
through
it
and
see.
Is
it
a
valid
answer?
Is
it
does
it
make
sense?
Does
it
not
also
ask
it
allows
us
to
ask
questions
about
what
they're,
what
they've
just
written
so.
G
G
B
And
I
I
agree,
you
know
with
what
mr
eisner
saying.
I
feel
that
you
know
the
city
staff.
You
know
you've
done
again
a
great
job,
revising
the
application
and
educating
the
applicants
and
saying
look.
This
is
what's
before.
I
think
tonight's
case
is
a
textbook
example
to
give
to
the
applicants
of
saying
you
know
proceed
with
caution.
You
know,
if
you
want
to,
you
know,
check
the
box
that
says
variance
request.
I
mean
like
it's,
the
they
have
legally
complied
with
filling
out.
B
B
But
I
I
think
I
just
think
it's
a
teachable
moment
for
our
future
applicants.
A
So
I
have
a
number
of
questions.
My
assumption
is:
we've
granted
them
the
ability
to
build,
because
we
voted
in
the
affirmative
on
that
right,
so
that
stays
with
the
land,
whether
they
sell
it
or
keep
it
right.
So
they
could
technically
build
something
within
the
parameters
without
coming
back
correct.
A
Okay,
I
just
wanted
to
triple
check
that
and
they
could
come
back
with
another
request
if
they
wanted
the
different
variants,
they
can
also
reapply
right.